this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
54 points (100.0% liked)

chat

8386 readers
176 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So there's this thing people do, it's harmless enough, but it also sort of hints at a completely incoherent style of thinking. It is absolutely unfair to judge people by random shit they write casually, after all I write like 3 geeked out baboons stacked atop one and other and yet I am a noble and refined rat.

Nonetheless I'm a judgy shit so I do. Ok so the thing? It's when people use a quote or situation from fiction as a predictor of what will happen in reality. A concrete example from earlier today paraphrased:

p1: I think blah blah thing will happen

p2: Ah but remember men in black? a person is reasonable, people are dumb panicky animals

me: teakettle noises

The causality is utterly confused, MiB cannot be used as evidence, it is written that way because the writer wanted a character to say that. It's possible a writer wanted a character to say that because the writer believed it to be true, but it's also possible that it was included for many other reasons.

screeeeeeeeeee

Anyway, share your thoughts. Also your own ridiculous rhetoric irritations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wwb4itcgas@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (16 children)

We're talking about the humanities, not STEM here. It's not like there's a social physics with firm predictive formulas for individual or even aggregate human behavior we can use instead. I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree that the narrative priorities of a given author should be taken into account when using fictional works like this, but... Surely you wouldn't say that Dostoevsky's The Idiot or an arbitrary Discworld novel haven't got anything real and useful to teach us about actual human behavior?

[–] insurgentrat@hexbear.net 21 points 1 day ago (15 children)

If the thing is in fiction because it happens in reality just use an example of it happening.

Made up shit only supports arguments about made up shit.

[–] wwb4itcgas@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (12 children)

If one known to the commenter is readily available that's fair I suppose, but sometimes the fictional example can be particularly poignant and the basis of your criticism can be advantageously used to illustrate something specific about a given situation and its broader context or impact that an isolated real event might not. As an example, take this small except from Pratchett's 'Small Gods' - largely a critique of religious fanaticism, group think and in/out group behaviors - in which the fictional philosopher "Didactylos" debates the practice of capital punishment (by way of public stoning) of people who've transgressed against the stringent edicts of the central theocracy in that book:

“I know about sureness,' said Didactylos. 'I remember, before I was blind, I went to Omnia once. And in your Citadel I saw a crowd stoning a man to death in a pit. Ever seen that?'

'It has to be done,' Brutha mumbled. 'So the soul can be shriven and-'

'Don't know about the soul. Never been that kind of philosopher,' said Didactylos. 'All I know is, it was a horrible sight.'

'The state of the body is not-'

'Oh, I'm not talking about the poor bugger in the pit,' said the philosopher. 'I'm talking about the people throwing the stones. They were sure all right. They were sure it wasn't them in the pit. You could see it in their faces. So glad it wasn't them in the pit that they were throwing just as hard as they could.”

I could instead have used some factual reporting about an instance of religious mistreatment by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran or something, but I frankly don't think that would have been equally illuminating.

Edit: Separately, as a counter-point to your assertion that "Made up shit only supports arguments about made up shit.", I'd point out that that doesn't even apply in the hard sciences. Einstein - with his justified love of the Gedankenexperiment - would have vehemently disagreed. So would Nicola Tesla, without the imagination of whom we probably would have eventually had a moden transmission system for energy, but nowhere near as early.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

but would you assert from that any capital punishment proceeds on these grounds as an axiom of humanity?

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)